Guns N Roses live: then vs. now

[PurpleHaze]

I much prefer the old line up live. Mainly because of Axl's sometimes poor vocals nowadays.

[SlashRock]

I have to say the original band wins hands down at the moment. The chemistry between the original band-AFD era that is-is just amazing too watch live. All of them had their own special uniqueness onstage from Steven's cheesy grins, Izzy's composed face and stance, Axl's craziness onstage,Duff's pure punkness to Slash's natural coolness whilst playing a guitar. The music was just so honest.

The new incarnation-2006-sure are a very talented band, but until they release their own material are just a cover band whether you like it or not; and no cover band beats the original. Sure the live shows by this new GnR are awesome but at the moment it just rekindles my memories of the old GnR, cos they're playing just that-Old GnR. Once the album is released and we hear the new material, I think that will be the time to make these comparisons-but at the moment we should just be glad that any incarnation of GnR is making music and playing shows.

[mynameisjonas]

I prefer music enthusiast to Slashite.

And apparently some people prefer the new band to the old band. Remember that 'Golden Rule' from way back when? Treat others blah blah blah...I agree, the new band MUSICALLY is better. And there's more than just power chords comin from this band, they've got some weird shit in there, too! Can't wait til this fall

[November_rain]

Honestly,I can´t be 100% honest because I´ve only seen the new band live and only saw the old band in bootledges and the UYI vhs tapes I have. So, from this point, the new band sounds better live IMO.

[Mutant Rose]

IMO, the original GNR win hands down from all the live videos and bootlegs I've heard.

The NuGnR put on a good show, but they would sound a lot better live if Axl just kept Robin to playing rhythm guitar. And, then divide the leads between Fortus and Bumblefoot.

for the love of god, stop calling them nu/new GNR.... you retarded monkey

It is GUNS N`ROSES..... see.. it`s not that hard.

Fuck

btw... im 100% agree whit the poster.... just get used to it...

To use the term old/original GunsN Roses or New /current Guns N Roses is not in and of its self bashing calm down. How else would you have us distinguish them. With groups like Black Sabbath People can name the Singer and other bands pre or post a certain member but with GNR it takes too much time as it was not just one member leaving and the original Singer is the only original member. I actually enjoyed this post and thought it was spot on. I am very hopeful about going to a concert with the US tour. I think this GNR is a wonderful band just quiet different from AFD which is fine because now we can have two wonderful bands for those with broader music tastes and those that like only one or the other well that is availble too PEACE,

[Axls_Disillusion]

As long as Axl is there, it's still worthy of GnR.

Bands lose the right to the name after they get rid of vocalist and guitarist/songwriter.

Should Black Sabbath have changed names once Ozzy and Bill Ward left?

Should Skid Row have changed names when Bach left?

Axl+Fortus=GnR

So Back in Black should have been from another band?

Faith No More got way better when Mike Patton joined.

I don't have a problem with a band carrying on. I have a problem with the way Axl's done it.

oh geez. lets hear it. what is wrong with the way Axl is doing things the way he wants to do things with his band?

[November_rain]

I don't have a problem with a band carrying on. I have a problem with the way Axl's done it.

Dude,you´re contradicting yourself here. Maybe you should say you don´t like/agree with the way Axl´s done it

[late0909]

Well it's a really hard call since Ive never seen the old line up live but the gigs I saw this summer were something so amazing that I cant even describe it.

Same here but maybe the old band had some more kick ass attitude since they were so much younger.

Anyway I love GN'R the way they are now too.

[IndiannaRose]

I think some of you need to read what this thread is about. The original poster is specifically speaking about sound quality and not things like chemistry or stage presence (both of which are extremely important but are not related to the thread's main objective). To a certain degree I also agree with him. If you compare high quality old audio bootlegs to present ones the sound difference (in the band's way of playing) is just so obvious there. In my opinion, I do think that this band can create a technically superior sound compared to the original band but then again, you all know which band wrote these songs.

The original Guns N' Roses had more of a punk sound to them. That's one of the reasons people prefer the sound of the old compared to the new. While the new band actually sounds better (imo), people are still gonna to go for that emotive raw/bluesy sound that Guns N' Roses had in the 80s and 1991/1993 (I hated their sound in 1992). That's one of the qualities that the original band would captivate from people.

For example, Use Your Illusion II might be my favorite album, but I do believe that "The Spaghetti Incident?!" has the best sound of all Guns N' Roses albums. There's something about the way that they mixed and mastered that album, which leads me to believe that it is a superior album when it comes to sound engineering. This is one of the things the Illusions suffered from imo (unsatisfactory mixing and mastering).

Anyways, it's just a matter of opinion and preference. Some people prefer the fuller and crispier sound of the new band while others tend to prefer enjoy the sound of raw power that the original Guns had.

Edited August 6, 2006 by IndiannaRose

[buzzkillz]

I'll tell you, though I'm sure you're not really interested.

Bands breaking up is one thing, but I'm not very fond of Axl's legal stunts to gain control of the band's name and catalog. I think it's underhanded and selfish.

As for the current band, I think Axl could do a lot more to support and encourage his new musicians.

He hires Bumblefoot (who is a supremely gifted guitar player and genuinely nice dude) to come in at the last minute, and for all intents and purposes, save his come back tour (and whole career). But Axl doesn't even let the guy have a CD of the new songs to work on. I think it's bullshit that the guy can be the lead guitarist of a guitar rock band, yet not be trusted enough to actually have a CD of his own.

I dislike the fact that Axl travels and behaves like a spoiled brat. Meanwhile, the rest of his band travels by bus and (according to Bumblefoot) they don't even party with him.

Those are a few examples. Basically, I don't think Axl treats these guys like a "band." They're just there to support him. Maybe he does, and I just haven't seen it. To me, what makes bands work is teamwork. As talented as Axl is, I still think there are some things he's not so good at. That's the beauty of a great band... different creative voices, converging, the best qualities of each member combining to make something bigger than the sum of their individual parts... like The Who, The Stones, The Band, Floyd, Crue, Sabbath, DLR era Van Halen.

With NuGuns, Axl flies in seperately. Finck, Fortus and Bumblefoot do their best to imitate somebody else's songs. Then when it's over, Axl high tails it out for models and splenda. The "band" can wait until they're needed again. Remember before the tour started? People would ask the "band" basic questions like when's the album coming out, when's the tour, are you still in the band... a lot of times they'd be unable to answer them.

To me, that doesn't sound like a band. It sounds like hired musicians. And that's a long way from what Guns N' Roses used to be.

It's entirely possible that you see these guys as a band. That's great for you. I'm glad they're making you very happy. Just trying to help you understand why I'm not so pleased with the way Axl's executed NuGuns. Maybe things will change when CD comes out. I wouldn't expect it to. All this stuff is a product of the same ego/control issues that undid the real GnR.

WELL SAID MAN!!

[Axls_Disillusion]

As long as Axl is there, it's still worthy of GnR.

Bands lose the right to the name after they get rid of vocalist and guitarist/songwriter.

Should Black Sabbath have changed names once Ozzy and Bill Ward left?

Should Skid Row have changed names when Bach left?

Axl+Fortus=GnR

So Back in Black should have been from another band?

Faith No More got way better when Mike Patton joined.

I don't have a problem with a band carrying on. I have a problem with the way Axl's done it.

oh geez. lets hear it. what is wrong with the way Axl is doing things the way he wants to do things with his band?

I'll tell you, though I'm sure you're not really interested.

Bands breaking up is one thing, but I'm not very fond of Axl's legal stunts to gain control of the band's name and catalog. I think it's underhanded and selfish.

As for the current band, I think Axl could do a lot more to support and encourage his new musicians.

He hires Bumblefoot (who is a supremely gifted guitar player and genuinely nice dude) to come in at the last minute, and for all intents and purposes, save his come back tour (and whole career). But Axl doesn't even let the guy have a CD of the new songs to work on. I think it's bullshit that the guy can be the lead guitarist of a guitar rock band, yet not be trusted enough to actually have a CD of his own.

I dislike the fact that Axl travels and behaves like a spoiled brat. Meanwhile, the rest of his band travels by bus and (according to Bumblefoot) they don't even party with him.

Those are a few examples. Basically, I don't think Axl treats these guys like a "band." They're just there to support him. Maybe he does, and I just haven't seen it. To me, what makes bands work is teamwork. As talented as Axl is, I still think there are some things he's not so good at. That's the beauty of a great band... different creative voices, converging, the best qualities of each member combining to make something bigger than the sum of their individual parts... like The Who, The Stones, The Band, Floyd, Crue, Sabbath, DLR era Van Halen.

With NuGuns, Axl flies in seperately. Finck, Fortus and Bumblefoot do their best to imitate somebody else's songs. Then when it's over, Axl high tails it out for models and splenda. The "band" can wait until they're needed again. Remember before the tour started? People would ask the "band" basic questions like when's the album coming out, when's the tour, are you still in the band... a lot of times they'd be unable to answer them.

To me, that doesn't sound like a band. It sounds like hired musicians. And that's a long way from what Guns N' Roses used to be.

It's entirely possible that you see these guys as a band. That's great for you. I'm glad they're making you very happy. Just trying to help you understand why I'm not so pleased with the way Axl's executed NuGuns. Maybe things will change when CD comes out. I wouldn't expect it to. All this stuff is a product of the same ego/control issues that undid the real GnR.

I dont agree with some of that but I can respect it because you expressed it maturely.

[IndiannaRose]

In my opinion, I do think that this band can create a technically superior sound compared to the original band but then again, you all know which band wrote these songs.

Why does everyone always have to put the word technically when speaking of their skills. Do you even know what you mean by that? What do you mean they are technically better? Why can't you just say they do sound better. That's all you need to say.

Because when using the word technically, you differentiate the abstract between the theoretical.

[IzzyRocks]

Then.

[ChineseDemocracy]

If Chinese Democracy ends up better than 'Its Five OClock Somewhere' (which was going to be the next GNR album) then we can finally put the question to rest as to who was more influential in GNR, Axl or Slash/Gilby/Matt (which all appeared on the first Snakepit album I believe).

[November_rain]

I'll tell you, though I'm sure you're not really interested.

Bands breaking up is one thing, but I'm not very fond of Axl's legal stunts to gain control of the band's name and catalog. I think it's underhanded and selfish.

As for the current band, I think Axl could do a lot more to support and encourage his new musicians.

He hires Bumblefoot (who is a supremely gifted guitar player and genuinely nice dude) to come in at the last minute, and for all intents and purposes, save his come back tour (and whole career). But Axl doesn't even let the guy have a CD of the new songs to work on. I think it's bullshit that the guy can be the lead guitarist of a guitar rock band, yet not be trusted enough to actually have a CD of his own.

I dislike the fact that Axl travels and behaves like a spoiled brat. Meanwhile, the rest of his band travels by bus and (according to Bumblefoot) they don't even party with him.

Those are a few examples. Basically, I don't think Axl treats these guys like a "band." They're just there to support him. Maybe he does, and I just haven't seen it. To me, what makes bands work is teamwork. As talented as Axl is, I still think there are some things he's not so good at. That's the beauty of a great band... different creative voices, converging, the best qualities of each member combining to make something bigger than the sum of their individual parts... like The Who, The Stones, The Band, Floyd, Crue, Sabbath, DLR era Van Halen.

With NuGuns, Axl flies in seperately. Finck, Fortus and Bumblefoot do their best to imitate somebody else's songs. Then when it's over, Axl high tails it out for models and splenda. The "band" can wait until they're needed again. Remember before the tour started? People would ask the "band" basic questions like when's the album coming out, when's the tour, are you still in the band... a lot of times they'd be unable to answer them.

To me, that doesn't sound like a band. It sounds like hired musicians. And that's a long way from what Guns N' Roses used to be.

It's entirely possible that you see these guys as a band. That's great for you. I'm glad they're making you very happy. Just trying to help you understand why I'm not so pleased with the way Axl's executed NuGuns. Maybe things will change when CD comes out. I wouldn't expect it to. All this stuff is a product of the same ego/control issues that undid the real GnR.

Let´s see... don´t want to start an argument but that´s how I see some things.

-Not going to talk about Axl´s legal status to his rights on the name/back catalogue because I don´t really know what´s happening with all that.

-It´s obvious he supports his new musicians,if not they wouldn´t be in the band.

-Bbf not playing in CD may be due to the fact that the record is finished? Even BBF said it himself,that he arrived too late.

-As for Axl not partying with the band... he behaved that way with the old band too,nothing new. And the fact that you work with some people and have a good relation with them doesn´t mean you have to party with them too,you´re not forced to do so. And maybe that´s what happens. Or,correct me if I´m wrong but I remember having read this band have partied together( Axl included ) in some occasions in this tour.

-Axl not travelling with the band? He didn´t travel with the old band either,and if he wants to travel alone what´s wrong with that?

-Models..yes,nothing new either. Splenda.. we don´t know and if he does,that´s his choice and his bussiness not ours.

-We don´t know if the band wait untill they are needed or not simply because we don´t know what kind of relatioship exists between them. Maybe they didn´t talk because they so decided or they simply wanted to be prudent about that things they were asked. We can´t make any assumptions because we don´t know what happens between those guys.

-Now, that you consider them a band or you don´t like them..that´s your opinion and is very respectable and you don´t know WHO undid GNR,I´d say it was a global effort and that each member contributed with a grain of sand to the break up.

[KBear]

If Chinese Democracy ends up better than 'Its Five OClock Somewhere' (which was going to be the next GNR album) then we can finally put the question to rest as to who was more influential in GNR, Axl or Slash/Gilby/Matt (which all appeared on the first Snakepit album I believe).

It's not a contest, who was most influential. Slash/Izzy/Duff/Axl. They were all influential. Proof of that is AFD, Lies, UYI. It's like HRF said - all members brought their best to the table and the whole equaled more than the sum of it's parts. If Axl and Slash could've found a way to collaborate on the Five O'Clock stuff and actually release something, it wouldn't sound exactly the same as what Snakepit ended up putting out. Axl would've put his stamp on it, and Slash would've made changes. Who's fault it was that this didn't end up happening I am not certain. The point is it didn't. Thus you can't take that album at face value as what the next Guns album would've sounded like.

And I don't know what you've got Gilby in there for. Even during the mid 90s when the band was working on new material he wasn't a part of the process. He may have appeared on the Snakepit album but he wasn't writing for GN'R. I guess Slash got him to help out when he finally determined the material would be used outside of GN'R. In any case, any album from 1996 on that would've or could've had Guns N' Roses on it would not have featured Gilby Clarke.

Edited August 6, 2006 by KBear

[wembley92]

this new band cant hold candle to original band seen em both live and it aint even close,and to the moron saying this is guns n roses your a total idiot the band was more than just a name it was a volatile mix that produced great music that you cant replace. they would play loud as well fuck me at wembley on 29th it was quiet,so much for worlds loudest most dangerous band its a watered down version and anyone saying different must have been to young to see orignal band and your clinging to this version so you can say you have seen guns n roses,well guess what you aint.by the way anyone comparing both bands by bootleg is obviously a fool.what the fuck does technically better mean,who gives a shit would you want axl replaced by a singer who is technically better?id rather take axl you no doubt want technical perfection well go listen to floyd,idiots.since when did gnr fans become embarrasing little kids.sorry gotta point out to person who said next gnr album would have been its five oclock somewhere dont you realise it took all their personalities to make the great music they did,they all brought the best out of each other so no it wouldnt have been like that

old band appetite.new gnr yes new gnr dickhead.silkworms,irs,better,chinese democracy,twat. now if any of you still thgink NEW guns is better your a fucking joke and i bet the current band would agree with me

[IndiannaRose]

this new band cant hold candle to original band seen em both live and it aint even close,and to the moron saying this is guns n roses your a total idiot the band was more than just a name it was a volatile mix that produced great music that you cant replace. they would play loud as well fuck me at wembley on 29th it was quiet,so much for worlds loudest most dangerous band its a watered down version and anyone saying different must have been to young to see orignal band and your clinging to this version so you can say you have seen guns n roses,well guess what you aint.by the way anyone comparing both bands by bootleg is obviously a fool.what the fuck does technically better mean,who gives a shit would you want axl replaced by a singer who is technically better?id rather take axl you no doubt want technical perfection well go listen to floyd,idiots.since when did gnr fans become embarrasing little kids.sorry gotta point out to person who said next gnr album would have been its five oclock somewhere dont you realise it took all their personalities to make the great music they did,they all brought the best out of each other so no it wouldnt have been like that

old band appetite.new gnr yes new gnr dickhead.silkworms,irs,better,chinese democracy,twat. now if any of you still thgink NEW guns is better your a fucking joke and i bet the current band would agree with me

Reading that was like listening to a baboon trying to learn English from a Chinese man.

Edited August 6, 2006 by IndiannaRose

[Superhuman55]

Anyone who says new GN'R sounds better live than old GN'R is not only deaf, but fucking retarded as well.

[Nightcrawler]

So i've been watching/listening to some of my bootlegs lately, and I honestly believe that the new band sounds better live than the old band.

I've seen each version live once, and as far as musical quality is concerned, it's no contest.

Now I know people always trash the new band about having three or four guitarists, (Izzy?) but I just think it gives the band a much fuller sound.

Don't get me wrong, I love Slash, but the old band would have these "lulls" to where there was almost dead air while waiting for one of the guitarists to play a solo. With the new band, however, there are no such lulls.

Of course, the old band is far superior in their song writing abilitys (so far at least) but all you bashers out there need to give the new band a real chance.

Go to a show during the US tour, and you'll see the difference......

I think today Axl sounds as good as his best with the old band.

I like the slight changes and rearrangements of the classic stuff, they made it less rocking and more musical, I guess would be the word.

But the new band are playing music written by others. It's easier to embellish on music others wrote. However, Its clear when they play songs like november rain, while the arrangement is more buetiful, with the added synth and other bells and whistles, the guitar player is unable to hold those long notes and make the transitions that slash wrote. That happens on every song that has a signiture slash guitar part. it's just not as organic when Robin or Richard or bumble play them. And maybe that's intentional, but that's the thing about Axl keeping the name GNR and playing such a complete set of classic songs with the new band, the old band was so iconic in sound, we fans tend to confuse the intentions of the new band. Is it to be GNR or is it to be another thing completely. I think it's the latter, but Axl should explain that to his fans, so that the reaction to the new band isn't based on what we fans think the old band was about musically.

Yes, GNR today and Past were both about being an almalgam of musical styles, but the influences are vastly different

GNR 2006 aren't trying to be a hard rock band in the tradition of whatever GNR was originally inspired by. Axls GNR is still probably going to be an amalgam of styles, like the old band was, but it's intention does not appear to be the same as the old band.

Edited August 6, 2006 by Nightcrawler

[IndiannaRose]

Anyone who says new GN'R sounds better live than old GN'R is not only deaf, but fucking retarded as well.

It's these kind of posts that makes discussion in this forum useless. You not only neglect to substantiate any opinion that you have, but you also choose to insult those who don't share your same argument. It's worthless.

[Superhuman55]

Anyone who says new GN'R sounds better live than old GN'R is not only deaf, but fucking retarded as well.

It's these kind of posts that makes discussion in this forum useless. You not only neglect to substantiate any opinion that you have, but you also choose to insult those who don't share your same argument. It's worthless.

I don't need to validate my opinion. It's simple logic.

It's like saying Ozzy sings better now than he did in 1975. Just a complete falseness.

Anyone who thinks the members of this band, especially Axl, sounds as good as the 87-93 years is just simply and ignorant person.

Don't get me wrong, Axl sounds very good, as does the rest of the band, and I love the new music, but to say they sound better is a fucking joke. People who say it are blinded by their emotions.

[mynameisjonas]

Anyone who says new GN'R sounds better live than old GN'R is not only deaf, but fucking retarded as well.

Is your username a reference to the Velvet Revolver song? They suck, in case you didn't realize it.

[wembley92]

this new band cant hold candle to original band seen em both live and it aint even close,and to the moron saying this is guns n roses your a total idiot the band was more than just a name it was a volatile mix that produced great music that you cant replace. they would play loud as well fuck me at wembley on 29th it was quiet,so much for worlds loudest most dangerous band its a watered down version and anyone saying different must have been to young to see orignal band and your clinging to this version so you can say you have seen guns n roses,well guess what you aint.by the way anyone comparing both bands by bootleg is obviously a fool.what the fuck does technically better mean,who gives a shit would you want axl replaced by a singer who is technically better?id rather take axl you no doubt want technical perfection well go listen to floyd,idiots.since when did gnr fans become embarrasing little kids.sorry gotta point out to person who said next gnr album would have been its five oclock somewhere dont you realise it took all their personalities to make the great music they did,they all brought the best out of each other so no it wouldnt have been like that

old band appetite.new gnr yes new gnr dickhead.silkworms,irs,better,chinese democracy,twat. now if any of you still thgink NEW guns is better your a fucking joke and i bet the current band would agree with me

Reading that was like listening to a baboon trying to learn English from a Chinese man.

[/quotetypical response from one of the kids on here,pathetic

[SERPICO]

Anyone who says new GN'R sounds better live than old GN'R is not only deaf, but fucking retarded as well.

Is your username a reference to the Velvet Revolver song? They suck, in case you didn't realize it.

Why? Because they didn't spend 13 years in the studio working on it? Or, because they moved on unlike Axl, and started fresh with a new band name?

Or, was it because it didn't take them 10 years to become a band?